originally posted by: Profusion
Do you have a source for the claim that Hillary Clinton wanted a no fly zone over all of Syria? I believed that was what Hillary Clinton supported too
until someone on this forum told me I was wrong, and I recall researching it further and discovering they were right.
...
I just searched through a bunch of articles, and I couldn't find any claims that Hillary Clinton wanted a no-fly zone over all of Syria. If you're
claiming that's the case, you need to support it with evidence.

You're probably confused because overall, her campaign strategy focused on attacking Trump as a boogeyman while hiding more difficult things like her
Neocon foreign policy out of mass media as much as possible.

Quoting Al Jazeera's transcript of when it came up in the 3rd debate, you can see that Hillary herself claims she has always supported no-fly zones in
Syria going back to her tenure at State:

Hillary at the 3rd debate:

Moderator: If you were president, what would you do about Syria and the humanitarian crisis in Aleppo?

Hillary Clinton: Well, the situation in Syria is catastrophic. And every day that goes by, we see the results of the regime by [Syrian President
Bashar] Assad in partnership with the Iranians on the ground, the Russians in the air, bombarding places, in particular Aleppo, where there are
hundreds of thousands of people, probably about 250,000 still left. And there is a determined effort by the Russian air force to destroy Aleppo in
order to eliminate the last of the Syrian rebels who are really holding out against the Assad regime.

Russia hasn't paid any attention to ISIS [Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant - ISIL]. They're interested in keeping Assad in power. So I, when I was
secretary of state, advocated and I advocate today a no-fly zone and safe zones. We need some leverage with the Russians, because they are not going
to come to the negotiating table for a diplomatic resolution, unless there is some leverage over them. And we have to work more closely with our
partners and allies on the ground.

edit: it occurs to me that you are perhaps intending to hide behind the weasel word "all" as in say that she didn't want one over literally all of
Syria? It is indeed harder to find anything that specifically maps out the particular no-fly zone she wanted, whether all or partial. Obviously, as a
Neocon, she would only have needed one that protected US supported terrorists trying to overthrow Assad at the behest of their Saudi masters. Neocons
primarily want one over urbanized western Syria to overthrow Assad, but preventing Russia from destroying ISIS oil smuggling in the East/North is fine
too (as a means to overthrowing Assad, bribing regionals like Erdogan, etc). So I think it's most likely that she did mean the whole
country.

Russia hasn't paid any attention to ISIS [Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant - ISIL]. They're interested in keeping Assad in power. So I, when I
was secretary of state, advocated and I advocate today a no-fly zone and safe zones. We need some leverage with the Russians, because they are not
going to come to the negotiating table for a diplomatic resolution, unless there is some leverage over them. And we have to work more closely with our
partners and allies on the ground.

It sounds as if you're arguing that Al Qaeda deserve to live and carry on keeping ObamaHillaryCo.'s war on Assad / Muslim's / the Middle East in
motion.

It also sounds as if you've no clue that's who the bulk of the "moderate rebels" are by now. If that be the case then I think we both know that's
being dishonest. www.abovetopsecret.com...

Over half the planet for that matter is ruled by harsh dictatorships / dystopia's / hegemonic imperialist's / phoney democracy's / corrupt regimes /
etc. That includes essentially the entire Middle East and surrounding nations around the region and far beyond. And the United States. And many of
"her" allies. Too many. That's the planet we live on (and its the US's fault so much of it is the way it is).

Who the hell are you are anybody in the United States to say we should blow up one regime, but not the rest of them (including ourselves)?

A NFZ is something that would be accomplished mostly through the air, setting up territory where civilians could take shelter from aircraft. “On
the whole, it doesn’t necessarily entail a major ground-based deployment in this area itself,” said Melissa Dalton, a senior fellow at the Center
for Strategic and International Studies’ International Security program and a former country director for Syria at the Department of Defense.

By contrast, safe zones or humanitarian corridors, which have a more extensive objective of protecting civilians in a territory from all types of
violence — whether it be attacks from the air, artillery and small arms fire, require much more than just an end to aerial bombardments.

Without an agreement with the Assad regime, Ferris and other analysts say that a safe zone could be a potential target for the so-called Islamic
State, Russian airstrikes and pro-Assad forces. Defending such a haven would likely require significant security, and potentially create the
conditions for the U.S. or other governments’ forces coming into conflict with Russia or Assad.

“If it’s not with the regime’s consent, then it’s basically a very hostile action – particularly if you’re going to provide any troops for
security to the safe zone,” Ferris said. Defending a safe zone could therefore push the U.S. or other government forces deeper into Syria’s
conflict.

I stand by what I wrote in the original post of this thread. The emboldened part below is as clear as can be.

The former strategists spoke to the Guardian as Clinton’s Republican rival Donald Trump warned that Clinton’s proposal to establish “safe
zones” to protect beleaguered Syrian civilians would “lead to world war three”.

But it says that Syria and Russia will be responsible for the air space. Almost nothing changes in that regard.

The post that you're replying to links to three different articles. Please quote exactly what you're referring to.

originally posted by: 11andrew34
it occurs to me that you are perhaps intending to hide behind the weasel word "all" as in say that she didn't want one over literally all of Syria? It
is indeed harder to find anything that specifically maps out the particular no-fly zone she wanted, whether all or partial. Obviously, as a Neocon,
she would only have needed one that protected US supported terrorists trying to overthrow Assad at the behest of their Saudi masters. Neocons
primarily want one over urbanized western Syria to overthrow Assad, but preventing Russia from destroying ISIS oil smuggling in the East/North is fine
too (as a means to overthrowing Assad, bribing regionals like Erdogan, etc). So I think it's most likely that she did mean the whole country.

You claimed that Hillary Clinton wanted a no fly zone over all of Syria. If you can't support that claim with anything, then you have no
case.

Meh, all this means is that Trump has decided to work with Saudi Arabia. Like Obama and Bush. As long as we keep working with the guys who spread the
ideology that breeds these terrorist groups. Nothing is really going to change over there.

ISIS will get destroyed and then a dozen more groups just like it will pop up. All with leadership who learned to proselytize the most twisted form of
Islam, at training camps in Saudi Arabia.

The American people get tricked into believing the job is done. But the same game gets played by us in the Middle-East, just under a new name. The
only difference seems to be the Russians will be joining the game this time.

The reality of course is that the Saudis and Gulf Arabs in general still control US policy in the region to a large extent. Think of them collectively
as the British Empire Arabs. They have power over the US from oil/energy, but also hold an enormous amount of dollars. They in effect hold the US
hostage with both energy and what they can do to the dollar as well as in the financial world in general. The British Empire Arabs take steps to hide
their influence, but have veto power at basically every major US corporation and a major say as to the agenda.

So what you see here is that Trump can't change all that at once. On the other hand, he is a Knight of Malta who clearly intends to do what he can to
put the US in a position to declare independence from Arab oil and finance.

Letting the Saudis do whatever they want in Yemen, and selling them the arms to do it is serious dirtbag stuff and it has been going on for years now.
Now that he's President, what Trump seems to be focusing on here is that since the Saudis have us over an oil barrel and we are going to have to do
their bidding, can we have some humanitarian concessions for the people of Yemen? And come on, are the Saudis really going to attack US troops?

The Syrian ones are riskier of course, but Russia has to agree to those, whereas the Saudis are the only ones we have to get to agree about Yemen.
This all may be a moot point if the Saudis would only agree to them in Yemen if they get them in Syria, as Russia will probably not agree to those.
The US would use them as a way to protect rebels fighting Assad, probably whether the Commander in Chief says so or not.

Whereas the only thing that would have been keeping Hillary from putting boots on the ground is the usual Clinton reluctance to risk their own power
for others. The reality is that the Saudis can basically force the US to do their bidding in the Middle East, as the past decades have demonstrated,
so if we're going to have boots on the ground in Yemen it was probably a Saudi decision anyway.

edit on 30-1-2017 by 11andrew34 because: clarification

edit on 30-1-2017 by 11andrew34 because: typo

edit on
30-1-2017 by 11andrew34 because: paragraph

edit on 30-1-2017 by 11andrew34 because: splitting post because of multiple
subjects

originally posted by: karmicecstasy
Meh, all this means is that Trump has decided to work with Saudi Arabia...The only difference seems to be the Russians will be joining the game this
time.

Here are some alternative views on that.

We have NO RIGHT to enter a sovereign country and do anything without permission of that country! PERIOD! This is against international law and is
unethical.
WHY risk going to war with Russia when this is absolutely NONE of our business anyway?! Russia will not stand by and allow our military to essentially
take over Syria, which would have to happen if the USA decided to illegally enter a foreign country and declare "safe zones" which would in reality be
war zones.

Right on: what if
Syria tried to create a safe zone in the US? What if Syrian,without permission, funded terrorists in the US and made a military invasion? Trump
promotes the sovereignty of the US but denies it to Syria? He has also said he would nuke ISIS which is holed up in cities with hundreds of thousands
of civilian shields. He also said he wouldn't take nuking Europe off the table. Wake up sheeple, you have been had by a master con man fronting for
the Deep State.

Good points made Dale. It seems as though Trump is a warmonger as well as HIllary is/was.
This worries me, and it is starting to worry Russia too. Sooner or later Russia WILL have to respond in a more meaningful manner than it has thus far.
(especially with our troops, nukes, and other ordnance on Russia's border.

originally posted by: Profusion
You claimed that Hillary Clinton wanted a no fly zone over all of Syria. If you can't support that claim with anything, then you have no
case.

It wasn't me who made the original claim here, but it is indeed a factual matter of record that is not at all in controversy, as I have already
demonstrated with numerous sources in an above post. I mean are you blind or something? Are you going to pretend I didn't post a bunch of links,
including sourcing her own statement at the 3rd debate?1?!?!

To repeat for emphasis, Hillary Clinton herself spoke directly on this point at the 3rd debate in front of tens of millions of people, and you are
still going to deny it here?

originally posted by: 11andrew34
To repeat for emphasis, Hillary Clinton herself spoke directly on this point at the 3rd debate in front of tens of millions of people, and you are
still going to deny it here?

I'm denying it because all I can find references to are things like "no-fly zones" or "a no-fly zone." I haven't been able to find any mention of
Hillary Clinton having a plan for a no-fly zone over all of Syria. Unless you can show me proof that you're right, I don't want to discuss it
anymore.

That point is moot in my view anyway. Unless Syria and Russia agree to the "safe zones" that Trump wants, we may be in the exact same situation that
Hillary Clinton would have put us in. That was the point I was trying to get across in the original post in this thread.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.